Here is a happy coincidence: I wrote a couple days ago defending phylogenetic trees against Casey's attacks. One way that I showed that phylogenetic trees match other data is by creating a tree based on cytochrome B and comparing it to the ERV data by Lebedev et al 2000 (The one from 29+ evidences of evolution fame). Unsurprisingly, they matched.

So I get to part 5 of Casey's evidence-less, quote mined, and prejudiced series of posts, and I found this:

Quote

pro-evolution textbooks often tout the Cytochrome C phylogenetic tree as allegedly matching and confirming the traditional phylogeny of many animal groups. This is said to bolster the case for common descent. However, evolutionists cherry pick this example and rarely talk about the Cytochrome B tree, which has striking differences from the classical animal phylogeny.

I about fell out of my chair when I read this. He references some 1999 paper from Trends in Ecology and Evolution as a reference. I will have to check it out sometime.

Here is a happy coincidence: I wrote a couple days ago defending phylogenetic trees against Casey's attacks. One way that I showed that phylogenetic trees match other data is by creating a tree based on cytochrome B and comparing it to the ERV data by Lebedev et al 2000 (The one from 29+ evidences of evolution fame). Unsurprisingly, they matched.

So I get to part 5 of Casey's evidence-less, quote mined, and prejudiced series of posts, and I found this:

Quote

pro-evolution textbooks often tout the Cytochrome C phylogenetic tree as allegedly matching and confirming the traditional phylogeny of many animal groups. This is said to bolster the case for common descent. However, evolutionists cherry pick this example and rarely talk about the Cytochrome B tree, which has striking differences from the classical animal phylogeny.

I about fell out of my chair when I read this. He references some 1999 paper from Trends in Ecology and Evolution as a reference. I will have to check it out sometime.

Here is a happy coincidence: I wrote a couple days ago defending phylogenetic trees against Casey's attacks. One way that I showed that phylogenetic trees match other data is by creating a tree based on cytochrome B and comparing it to the ERV data by Lebedev et al 2000 (The one from 29+ evidences of evolution fame). Unsurprisingly, they matched.

So I get to part 5 of Casey's evidence-less, quote mined, and prejudiced series of posts, and I found this:

Quote

pro-evolution textbooks often tout the Cytochrome C phylogenetic tree as allegedly matching and confirming the traditional phylogeny of many animal groups. This is said to bolster the case for common descent. However, evolutionists cherry pick this example and rarely talk about the Cytochrome B tree, which has striking differences from the classical animal phylogeny.

I about fell out of my chair when I read this. He references some 1999 paper from Trends in Ecology and Evolution as a reference. I will have to check it out sometime.

5. Factual Error: Francis Beckwith on IDEA Center Advisory BoardThe book states that Francis Beckwith is on our Advisory Board. When the authors accessed our website in April of 2003, he was on our Advisory Board. However, as of August of 2003, Francis Beckwith is no longer on our Advisory Board.

6. Factual Error: IDEA Club at the University of Hawaii-Hilo:The book states that there is an IDEA Club at the University of Hawaii-Hilo. While our website may have stated that there is such a club when the authors accessed it in April of 2003, at the time of the book's publication (January, 2004) there is not to our knowledge an IDEA Club at the University of Hawaii-Hilo, as is currently reflected on our website.

So Forrest and Gross are supposedly making "factual errors" by relying on what the IDEA Center website actually said at the time that the manuscript was being written? Whoa.

Ignorant slimeball Casey Luskin appeared on Fox News to peddle some tired lies about evolution and creationism. YouTube user Donexodus2 recorded a thorough, point-by-point takedown of Luskin using clips from the Fox News show. The Discovery Institute filed false (and therefore illegal) DMCA claims, successfully convincing YouTube to remove the video despite the fact that they do not own the copyright to those clips. Now, Donexodus2 needs users to mirror the original video and help with suing the pants off the lying creationists.

--------------Lou FCD is still in school, so we should only count him as a baby biologist. -carlsonjok -deprecatedI think I might love you. Don't tell Deadman -Wolfhound

ID Proponent: World’s most famous evolutionist Richard Dawkins (who is anti-ID): “Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.”

Darwinist: Hmmf. TalkOrigins Quote Mine Project.

ID Proponent: DNA Nobel Prize winner Francis Crick (who is anti-ID): “Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved.“

Darwinist: TalkOrigins Quote Mine Project.

ID Proponent: Former NAS president Bruce Alberts (who is anti-ID): “The entire cell can be viewed as a factory that contains an elaborate network of interlocking assembly lines, each of which is composed of a set of large protein machines. . . . Why do we call the large protein assemblies that underlie cell function protein machines? Precisely because, like machines invented by humans to deal efficiently with the macroscopic world, these protein assemblies contain highly coordinated moving parts.”

ID Proponent: How did any single biochemical pathway arise? Evolution of the gaps. ID dramatically superior.

[Empty Silence; Crickets.]

Darwinist: Wedge. You’re ignorant, insane, and wicked.

——————————–

Note: This was intended as a parody only, although sadly it represents the many fallacious objections to ID raised by Darwinists. If anything, this parody underestimates the amount of name-calling and personal attacks that a Darwinist would have probably leveled (in this case, the Darwinist refrains from personal attacks until the very end.)

A real scholarly debate between those on both sides of the intelligent design controversy would have much more technical arguments. Nonetheless, the sad truth is that when many criticize intelligent design in the media, courtrooms, classrooms, and even scientific journals, their arguments often fail to rise above those of the “Darwinist” antagonist presented here. For those interested in serious, scientific discussions of intelligent design, check out any of these two books that have both pro- and con- arguments regarding intelligent design:

· Darwinism, Design, and Public Education, Edited By: Campbell, John Angus and Meyer, Stephen (Michigan State University Press, 2003).

Rich - So, just pop over to the Discovery Institute's Open Forum, where I am sure with a name like that they encourage an open and free exchange of ideas, and I am sure Casey would be happy to repond to any reasonable question.

Wait, What? Oh. Never mind.

--------------Come on Tough Guy, do the little dance of ID impotence you do so well. - Louis to Joe G 2/10

Gullibility is not a virtue - Quidam on Dembski's belief in the Bible Code Faith Healers & ID 7/08

Information is the result of applying information theory (formally or from an intelligent being applying context), and implies nothing about intelligence being related to the phenomenon it was applied to.

and so on...

--------------"Following what I just wrote about fitness, you’re taking refuge in what we see in the world." PaV

*Tip to IDer: find some consistently observed pattern of observations that would be a logical consequence of life being deliberately engineered by somebody or something.

Given the usual ixnay-on-the-odgay formulation of ID (an unidentified designer did unspecified things at undetermined times for unfathomable reasons): all the observations you mentioned are consistent with ID. So are any other observations, hypothetical or actual.

--------------Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it. - Robert Byers

I assume that Casey Luskin reads this site. How else would he know we call him an Attack Gerbil, DI Shill and Fuckwit?

I also assume that Casey Luskin is not banned from posting here. He could defend himself, call us fuckwits or invite us to help him serve soup to the homeless in Seattle.

Thus, freedom of speech, academic freedom and teach the controversy is alive and well at the Panda's Thumb. Come on over, Casey, we'd love to play.

I don't have to assume, because I know for a FACT that freedom of speech, academic freedom and teaching the controversy is BANNED at the Discovery Institute's website. Yes, a standard of free speech for us and a different standard for the proclaimers of free speech and academic freedom at the DI.

Not surprising, though. In every forum where Luskin has squeaked he's had his little furry ass kicked by people who actually know what they're talking about because Luskin is invariably WRoNG.

So my challenge to Luskin and the DI is to come here and do your best. Show us that we're wrong and demonstrate why.

Notice how Casey the Wonder Gerbil and aspiring Legal Begle doesn't tweak that the call may be recorded until the very end, even though qDragon1337 clearly states that he's a YouTube user right at the start of the conversation. Get a clue, Casey!

Also, Casey not very skillfully avoids answering the question which was directed at activities by the DI, not Casey personally.

[To Tiana Dietz]:I get called unjustified names all the time on the ‘net and so I made my peace with such people and such incidents long ago; so I’m not angry about this, and as I said in my prior e-mail to you, I forgive you.

Quote

[Second email to Tiana Dietz]:Regardless of where you choose to go from here, I want you to know that I forgive you, I wish you the best in your life, and I also hope, for your own sakes that you can join the culture of civility and friendship that is very real and very vibrant.

Quote

In one single forum at Antievolution.org, created and owned by a former National Center for Science Education staff member, I have been called no less than “Bizarre ignoramus,” “retarded,” “suck-up,” “Pathetic Loser,” “attack mouse, gerbil, rat, or clockwork powered plush toy,” “an orc,” “Annoying,” “a miserable loser with no life,” “an idiot,” “dishonest,” “ignorant cheap poxied floozie,” “fanatic and lunatic,” “A proven liar,” “incompetent,” and many other far more colorful attacks which are probably best left unprinted here on Evolution News and Views.

I don’t list this example to complain — I happily forgive those who have attacked me...

Quote

Dear all,

I could say much in defense of myself here, but this is neither the time nor the appropriate venue to do so. In this regard, I have one, and only one post to make, and one, and only one thing to say: I forgive you all for how you have treated me here, and most of all I forgive Wesley Elsberry and Steve Story.

Sincerely,

Casey Luskin

Quote

But I forgive Wesley regardless of whether he does the right thing here, and I will continue to be nice to him in the future.

Quote

[To qdragon1337]:I'm hanging up this phone right now 'cause you have made an illegal action against me and I appreciate your time. If this gets posted you should be aware that I, my understanding is that it is illegal to record a phone call without somebody's knowledge, or letting them know about that first, so I'm going to hang up this phone because you have done something illegal, hope you have a nice day, I have no ill will against you, and I forgive you for the illegal action that you have [unintelligible] today. Have a nice day. Thank you very much. Bye.

Hey Casey,

It seems like you've forgiven everyone but me. I feel left out. You even forgave Wes and Tiana Dietz twice. What do I have to do to be granted your forgiveness? If I call you a sanctimonious douchebag, will you forgive me? Oh, wait -- that would be true, so there would be no need for forgiveness.

Never mind.

--------------And the set of natural numbers is also the set that starts at 0 and goes to the largest number. -- Joe G